CWA Wants a Broadband Strategy - More incentives, raise FCC 200kbps definition...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

CWA Wants a Broadband Strategy
More incentives, raise FCC 200kbps definition...
(old news - 02:01PM Tuesday Jan 23 2007)
tags: coverage · business · bandwidth · stats
Tipped by jslik
Jslik writes in: "The Communications Workers of America have released a white paper (pdf) on the need for a better broadband/telecom plan for the US." The U.S. has no comprehensive broadband plan (unless you consider lobbyist-driven, deregulatory efforts to maximize incumbent revenue a plan), and the union recently launched their Speed Matters campaign to help promote broadband investment and buildout (for obvious reasons). The report trots out stats we're all familiar with, including our falling rankings in global broadband competitiveness:
"The top speed generally available in Japan is 51 mbps at a cost of $0.06 per 100 kbps. The top speed generally available in the U.S. is 6 mbps available at a cost of $0.72 per 100 kbps. In other words, the Japanese have 8.5 times the speed at 1/12 of the cost."
It also discusses the economic perks of improving broadband penetration:
"A number of reports using forward-looking economic models have calculated that broadband would add $500 billion to GDP and 1.2 million additional jobs from the construction and use of a nationwide broadband network. Another paper warned that the failure to improve broadband performance could reduce U.S. productivity by one percentage point or more per year."
Solutions proposed include the FCC raising the standard definition of broadband from 200kbps to 10Mbps/1Mbps, while reforming suspect penetration measurement. They're also pushing for greater government incentives, noting the U.S. invests very little in telecom as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, falling behind South Korea, Great Britain, Spain, Canada, Japan, France and "even" Mexico.

Related:
  1. U.S. Tops 2 Million Home Fiber Connections
  2. Product Spotlight: EV-DO Showdown - Verizon vs. Sprint
  3. The FCC's Rose-Colored Broadband Glasses
  4. Broadband Infrastructure Investment Would Have Ten Fold Payoff
  5. Investors Review Positive U-Verse Developments
  6. Tuesday Evening Links
  7. Friday Evening Links
  8. Global Broadband Prices Plummet
Links: New Topic
Forums »

inteller @ 23rd Jan 01:27PM:
10/1.....yeah right.

That will fly like a lead balloon. Probably threw up that super high number so it would land somewhere in the middle like 5/512 or 7/768.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"

reply
bruce0195 @ 23rd Jan 01:32PM:
Cost per kbps

Is that 0.72 dollars or 0.72 cents? Just making sure these CWA paper writers aren't also Verizon Wireless CSR's, that's all......
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 23rd Jan 01:41PM:
Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

A big push for expanding broadband? Couldn't be so that their union members get more jobs and higher pay could it?
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page

reply
Karl Bode @ 23rd Jan 01:43PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

Tricky bastards!
reply
HyPeRbAnD @ 23rd Jan 01:44PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

said by TK Junk Mail :

A big push for expanding broadband? Couldn't be so that their union members get more jobs and higher pay could it?
My thoughts exactly!!!
reply
ninjatutle @ 23rd Jan 01:49PM:
Union Doo's

Its all about the Benjamin's.
reply
alchav @ 23rd Jan 01:52PM:
Good Information!

I know the CWA wants to create more jobs for their members, but what a creative way of doing it. If you look at that chart that tells what Technology Infrastructure provides the most speed and bandwidth, Fiber is at the top. So what I have been telling you guys, Verizon with their FiOS is in the Drivers Seat. Fiber and Networks will be the Standard in the near Future.
reply
richdelb @ 23rd Jan 01:53PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

Yea, why the heck not?
reply
calvoiper @ 23rd Jan 02:00PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

CWA needs to realize that its unionized employer is headed they way of unionized airlines now that competition is arriving--with one key difference. It took the unionized airlines 20 years or more after competition to reach bankruptcy. Internet time is faster.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

reply
HyPeRbAnD @ 23rd Jan 02:07PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

said by richdelb :

Yea, why the heck not?
I agree keep our americans working, jobs are great. I just not a union fan.
reply
justbits @ 23rd Jan 02:10PM:
Re: Bad Information!

ADSL is not capable of 20Mbps as the document shows.
VDSL, VDSL2, ADSL2 and ADSL2+ are capable of 20Mbps speeds only with proper loop conditioning.
reply
vpoko @ 23rd Jan 02:19PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

said by TK Junk Mail :

A big push for expanding broadband? Couldn't be so that their union members get more jobs and higher pay could it?
Nah, it's like studies financed by corporate dollars, they're really looking for the truth with no regard for their own consequences. ;)
reply
Maxo @ 23rd Jan 02:19PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

said by TK Junk Mail :

A big push for expanding broadband? Couldn't be so that their union members get more jobs and higher pay could it?
Of course. I don't think they have any hidden agenda. It would certainly be odd if they sent out a report pushing for a national plan to push for non-communication related efforts.
reply
RayW @ 23rd Jan 02:42PM:
Re: Cost per kbps

said by bruce0195 :

Is that 0.72 dollars or 0.72 cents? Just making sure these CWA paper writers aren't also Verizon Wireless CSR's, that's all......
Does not matter in this case, it is a comparison and not an obligation to pay (although I would like to see how they figure those numbers and I saw the note "Note: Consumers do not always obtain the speeds advertised by any of these providers."). Which bring us right back to "lies, damn lies, and statistics". Did they pick the points they wanted or is it truly representative of the entire country?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.

reply
Alpine @ 23rd Jan 02:44PM:
Why?

I just don't see how all of this talk is meaningful. No one (except people on this board) cares a lick about the "international broadband rankings," especially considering how much of an inane apples-to-oranges comparison it is.

And what if the FCC raises their definition? Will anything at all change because of it? Will DSL suddenly be able to provide 10/1 at 20,000 ft? Will cable instantly become a non-shared architecture so everyone is guaranteed their 10/1? (Or "whatever," just using 10/1 as an example.)

I see this as nothing more than sabre-rattling with no real-world implications at all.

Adam
reply
anon @ 23rd Jan 02:49PM:
Hmmm...

If you calculate the population per square mile in Japan vs. US then it would make sense if 1/2 of the population in Japan used the broadband connection at .06. I would love to have a faster connection. But with companies in the US being so driven of the almighty $$ and making a profit it's just not in thier books.

Sorry to say!
reply
pnh102 @ 23rd Jan 02:50PM:
Re: Why?

Amen to that... if it was something important, than the USA would be #1 in it :)
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

reply
BloodRoses @ 23rd Jan 02:50PM:
Re: 10/1.....yeah right.

I personally think it should be 10 Megabits in both directions as a minimum.
reply
batterup @ 23rd Jan 02:52PM:
CWA wants what you want.

And still you bitch.
reply
bmn @ 23rd Jan 03:01PM:
Re: Why?

said by pnh102 :

Amen to that... if it was something important, than the USA would be #1 in it :)
Man, that's a good theory there... Too bad it ain't so. :D
--
Prove it...

reply
Matt @ 23rd Jan 03:03PM:
Re: Why?

said by Alpine :

I just don't see how all of this talk is meaningful. No one (except people on this board) cares a lick about the "international broadband rankings," especially considering how much of an inane apples-to-oranges comparison it is.

And what if the FCC raises their definition? Will anything at all change because of it? Will DSL suddenly be able to provide 10/1 at 20,000 ft? Will cable instantly become a non-shared architecture so everyone is guaranteed their 10/1? (Or "whatever," just using 10/1 as an example.)

I see this as nothing more than sabre-rattling with no real-world implications at all.

Adam
Just like the highway interstate system wasn't important until people realized it lowered pricing by bringing competition and jobs to their area. Among the other multitude of advantages.

And no, DSL won't be able to provide the speeds, but of course then your beloved AT&T will have to drop their inane push for FTTN and step up to the plate and provide a real solution. Verizon gets it, the cable companies half get it, why doesn't AT&T?

The real world implications are there, it's just your choice if you choose to see them or not.

We need a real, VIABLE National Broadband Plan. Not some patchwork of 1920's copper wiring that takes a week to even provision DSL on.
--
Use the OS tool for the job.

reply
Alpine @ 23rd Jan 03:19PM:
Re: CWA wants what you want.

You forget that the #1 pasttime of DSLReports readers is bitching. They'll always find a flaw in the best news because they're not happy unless they're complaining.

:-)

Adam
reply
Dolgan @ 23rd Jan 03:25PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

How is it the Union Worker's fault when a company is mismanaged? The leadership at companies such as Ford, GM, United Airlines, Delta, and etc are the ones who failed to change in their competitive environments. Crappy products and/or services are the greatest contributors to each comapany's demise/lack of profits. The executives blame employee benefits/pensions for lack of profitability; however, when a company goes bankrupt the employees lose their benefits while the fat cat executive's compensation packages are protected.

The CEOs of the RBOCs are making over 400 times what their average employee makes, and more money in 1 day than over 80% of the American population as a whole. Who is the one that is overpaid and overcompensated for their work? Outsourcing and the use of non-union labor may be good for the balance sheet, but it also creates more problems due to substandard work and other barriers.

How many people do you know who disdain speaking to "David" in Bangalore due to rudeness, poor English skills, and a general lack of being able to handle the customer's problem in an efficient manner? How many people have troubles when a crappy sub contractor puts a buried drop about 1 inch deep in the soil and/or fails to terminate it properly at the NID or Ped? How many lines are cut, yards damaged, and general property damaged because of the use on non-trained, non-union subcontractors? Cheap labor has its costs as well.

The CWA leadership has decided to take a stand to protect its membership's jobs, create new jobs, and bring better broadband services to more Americans. Do you really think the RBOCs will do this on their own? Are the smaller ILECs such as Century Tel, Frontier, TDS Telecom, Fairpoint, and etc going to bring broadband to more of their rural population base on their own will also? Are the Cable Cos going to start wiring rural areas? Are WISPs magically going to appear? if you think the answer is yes, then you need to pull your head out of your arse with both hands--as you have no clue as to what is happening.
reply
jdmatl @ 23rd Jan 03:29PM:
blame George Bush...

Did anyone blame Bush for this? If not, let me toss the "it is Bush's fault" ;)
reply
Alpine @ 23rd Jan 03:33PM:
Re: Why?

quote:
of course then your beloved AT&T will have to drop their inane push for FTTN and step up to the plate and provide a real solution. ... We need a real, VIABLE National Broadband Plan. Not some patchwork of 1920's copper wiring that takes a week to even provision DSL on.


Since when would the FCC changing their definition of broadband force AT&T to go straight FTTH? It wouldn't. It doesn't change the technology behind each method of delivery. Plus, even if they did greatly increase the definition, it sure as hell wouldn't be greater than what AT&T and most other providers can offer now. And what effect does the 200k standard really have outside of rhetoric? Do you know a single provider that only offers ~200k service?

As I said, no real world implications.

I'm curious what you would want in your "VIABLE national broadband plan." When people like you say a "viable national broadband plan," you generally seem to mean government mandated rules and regulations that treat private companies like government entities. Just because you don't like the infrastructure doesn't mean the government has the right to dictate how a private company does business.

Adam
reply
RayW @ 23rd Jan 03:36PM:
Re: blame George Bush...

said by jdmatl :

Did anyone blame Bush for this? If not, let me toss the "it is Bush's fault" ;)
I did not know Bush was Union!
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.

reply
RIRWIN1983 @ 23rd Jan 03:37PM:
Re: blame George Bush...

and i'll add it the dam demorcats, or those racey republicans to blame too! lol
reply
Zoder @ 23rd Jan 03:43PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

The big difference is that the airlines had many competitors rise up. Even though cable and phone companies will be competing for services, you still only have 2 lines coming into your house. Those last mile lines will always need to be maintained.
reply
Yauch @ 23rd Jan 03:51PM:
Re: Why?

There is only 1 group of people who care about statistics like that (aside from these boards). The Politicians. The push for a higher standard is nothing but legislation created by politicos to justify their case for further legislation to provide a LMS to more homes. What you are watching is a union pushing a government agenda in exchange for more public contracts.

I have nothing against unions or more bandwidth obviously, but when a union pushes a government controlled internet agenda for a contract, its hard to say they have the peoples best interest at heart.

If they were to come out and push a comprehensive plan to provide neutral and inexpensive back-haul to every area of the country, to be sold to anyone private or public, I'm on board.

Raising the FCC definition won't stimulate competition, were just promoting Muni's and adding one more arm to the duopoly (trioploly?).

I keep hearing the public roads analogy. Since when did paving everyone's drive-way create an economic boom? We need some roads first. Our politicians need to stop concentrating on the last-mile, and start worrying about the actual infrastructure. Making bandwidth available to houses in under-served areas isn't competition. Making large amounts of bandwidth to everyone, everywhere is.
reply
inteller @ 23rd Jan 04:09PM:
Re: 10/1.....yeah right.

yes, and I would like to shit gold bricks too but that has an equal chance of happening.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"

reply
jslik @ 23rd Jan 06:04PM:
Re: Why?

said by Alpine :

And what if the FCC raises their definition? Will anything at all change because of it?
I did tip this post, but it was more for discussion than for endorsement. I don't agree with everything in the paper, especially the need for another agency/office, as the FCC should be doing its dang job.

That said, I think it just points out the need for an actual policy - something I just don't see currently.

To your point, something small like changing definitions would have the real-world impact of showing just how poor of a job the FCC is truly doing - and taking a CYA statistic away from the FCC.
reply
TScheisskopf @ 23rd Jan 06:14PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

said by TK Junk Mail :

A big push for expanding broadband? Couldn't be so that their union members get more jobs and higher pay could it?
How true. How DARE anyone want to work or want more jobs.

The nerve.
reply
TScheisskopf @ 23rd Jan 06:18PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

How is it the Union Worker's fault when a company is mismanaged?

Because the squawking Heads said so.

This has been another episode of Simple Answers to Simple Questions. (h/t Dr. Black)
reply
TScheisskopf @ 23rd Jan 06:20PM:
Re: blame George Bush...

Ok.

It's Dear Leader's fault.

There. Better?
reply
wev567 @ 23rd Jan 06:54PM:
Re: Cost per kbps

said by bruce0195 :

Is that 0.72 dollars or 0.72 cents? Just making sure these CWA paper writers aren't also Verizon Wireless CSR's, that's all......
Wireless is all non-union, and the bosses work hard to keep it that way.
reply
bluepoint951 @ 23rd Jan 07:06PM:
Re: Cost per kbps

No true.... Cingular is Union.... CWA
reply
wev567 @ 23rd Jan 07:14PM:
Re: Cost per kbps

said by bluepoint951 :

No true.... Cingular is Union.... CWA
Sorry, I meant Verizon Wireless. And the T1s to feed the towers are usally installed by represented employees from the land line part of the company.
reply
Claybraker @ 23rd Jan 07:53PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

said by calvoiper :

CWA needs to realize that its unionized employer is headed they way of unionized airlines now that competition is arriving--with one key difference. It took the unionized airlines 20 years or more after competition to reach bankruptcy. Internet time is faster.

calvoiper
Currently, the competition in the last mile is from the cable companies.

I'll concede that cable can offer higher speeds in some areas. They have a temporary advantage, but it's not really that significant.

That's heresy on Dslreports, but I spend all day eye-ball to eye-ball with subscribers. For the most part speed, beyond the ability to watch streaming videos from you tube isn't that much of a concern.

What's important is service. That's how you set yourself apart in the marketplace.

Case in point, this afternoon I was dispatched to a subscriber's location to trouble shoot a router issue. She couldn't watch a particular flash video using IE6, and couldn't upgrade to IE7 due to conflicts with other applications.

I installed firefox, updated flash and everything was hunky dory. It took a little bit longer than telling the subscriber that the problem was in her CPE and wasn't our problem, but the end result is she's happy.

I took a hit on efficiency, the service call took more than the standard time. But the subscriber is happy.

Believe it or not, those of us in the CWA are more concerned with subscriber satisfaction than which drone happens to occupy the top spot. It's pretty easy to replace upper level management, but subscribers are a whole 'nother ball of wax.
reply
calvoiper @ 23rd Jan 09:23PM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

Man, the CWA lovers really came out of the woodwork.

Telco management must have told the troops that it's OK to post to BBR during working hours....

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

reply
dslwanter @ 23rd Jan 09:38PM:
Well

When you keep allowing companies to discriminate people and not make services available to them because of where they live that's how it is. 10mbps as a "broadband standard", are you serious? How about getting people at least 1mbps first.

Until they start regulating it and considering it a utility I don't see the country having any decent "plan" let alone pull ahead of any particular country in broadband rankings.
--
"Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do onto me!" Check out my internet radio station: »www.thebomb102.com

reply
xdeadhead @ 23rd Jan 10:00PM:
Re: Cost per kbps

said by wev567 :

said by bluepoint951 :

No true.... Cingular is Union.... CWA
Sorry, I meant Verizon Wireless. And the T1s to feed the towers are usally installed by represented employees from the land line part of the company.
yes that part is true. i have personally installed dozens of T1 lines at lots of towers around here over the years. and yes i am cwa.
--
I am not herbert.

reply
anon @ 23rd Jan 11:07PM:
"Generally available in Japan?" No... in Tokyo and Osaka

"The top speed generally available in Japan is 51 mbps at a cost of $0.06 per 100 kbps."

"Generally available in Japan" means "in Tokyo (and central Osaka" then?

I've been to Japan. 51 mbps is not "generally available in Japan" outside of Tokyo and central Osaka. Yeah, what's in Tokyo is very impressive, and Tokyo is 10% of the population. But my friends in Yokohama can't get fiber, and nor can people in Kyoto or elsewhere.

One almost might as well say that FIOS is "generally available."
reply
justin @ 23rd Jan 11:47PM:
Re: "Generally available in Japan?" No... in Tokyo and Osaka

said by John T :

"Generally available in Japan" means "in Tokyo (and central Osaka" then?
Tokyo/Yokohama/Osaka is way over 10% of the population, and probably over 30% of the industrial and business output of the country. The urban digital army can mostly get cheap broadband. If they can't get 51mbps fiber, they can get various flavors of higher speed DSL or higher speed regular cable.

You can't bring up FIOS (which can't compete with that on price anyway) because FIOS is probably passing, what?, 0.5% of american homes, even in the cities, probably 2% of homes.

Yes: there isn't a "no home left behind" program for japanese fiber, but both prices and speeds are probably 5 years ahead of the US. (eg: I doubt the american cities in 2012 will be where they are now). Same goes for mobile data as well.
reply
alchav @ 24th Jan 05:09AM:
Re: Bad Information!

ADSL, VDSL....SADSL, it's all the same, Copper is a poor choice for Fast Broadband. AT&T will fail with their FTTP!
reply
Maxo @ 24th Jan 07:26AM:
Re: Did they include the part about adding jobs for CWA ?

said by calvoiper :

Man, the CWA lovers really came out of the woodwork.

Telco management must have told the troops that it's OK to post to BBR during working hours....

calvoiper
Yep, whenever someone posts something good about a company or union it could only be that those people posting are from said union or company. It's inconceivable that the general public doesn't hate every entity out there.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter

»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad

»maxolasersquad.com/

»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide

»myspace.com/mlsquad

reply
inteller @ 24th Jan 03:24PM:
CWA a monster out of control

Really, is the telecom industry so bad that it needs union representation? Not for most REAL telecom jobs. CWA grew out of representing mindless pools of telemarketers. Your average network administrator doesnt need collective bargaining power.

I've never really thought of telecom as a blue collar industry, unless you count cable installers and tech support armies. But the CWA is trying to nebulously engulf everyone. I would have no interest in such bureaucratic crap.
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC